In 1995, while National Director of the Libertarian Party, Perry Willis
wrote some fund-raising letters for the 1996 Browne for President campaign
before I won the party's nomination.

Eventually, the national chairman asked Perry to
stop his moonlighting. However, he wrote four more letters before
terminating the arrangement.

Between 1996 and 2000, some Libertarians who didn't want me to be the
party's nominee kept implying that Perry had been paid by my campaign to
use his position to throw the party's nomination to me. Jacob Hornberger,
for example, accused me of "lining the pockets" of party
employees and LNC members as a way of getting the 1996 nomination.

On April 21, 2001, John Famularo (formerly the LP Secretary and
formerly a computer consultant to LP headquarters) made public an invoice
from Perry to a vendor who did work for the 1996 Browne campaign —
showing that Perry had continued writing fund-raising letters for me after
he had been told to stop. Perry acknowledged this in a report he issued on
May 11, 2001, to clarify the matter. {www.HarryBrowne.org/policy/policy.htm}

This revelation was welcomed by a number of Libertarians who had always
considered themselves opponents of Perry Willis, of the national LP, or of
me. They tried to make it appear that Perry had committed an act of
extreme corruption — that he had used his position as National Director
to subvert the party's presidential nomination process.

When he attempted to point out that he was helping the Browne campaign
do outreach to non-Libertarians, which he thought would be good for the
party, he was accused of saying that "the ends justify the
means" — as though he were justifying a heinous act in the name of
some "greater good." One writer (Jim Davidson) even suggested
that Perry
might justify killing another Libertarian as necessary for "party
unity."

It's important to realize that, even as the LP's National Director,
Perry had no power to influence the outcome of a presidential nominating
race. He controlled no delegates, he had no control over how the
nominating convention would be run, he did nothing as National Director to
alter the outcome of the nomination race, and he never made a public
statement supporting my nomination..

All he did was to write letters that helped me raise money to do
outreach to non-Libertarians — and he did it in exchange for market
rates of compensation. In fact, nothing in Perry's employment contract
with the LP prohibited moonlighting. Despite this, the LNC debated the
matter in December 1995 — finally deciding not to prohibit such activity
but ordering that such activity be known to the LNC. Although it has been claimed that he agreed to stop
and then lied about his continuing activities, the truth is that he
vigorously opposed the order to stop moonlighting. This is shown in the
minutes of the LNC meeting at which the order was given.

Here are two excerpts from those minutes:

Mr. Willis said he strongly objected to this resolution because
what should be of issue is the application of the resources of the
Party and whether or not those are misappropriated. Mr. Willis said he
could determine on an individual basis whether a specific request from
Sharon Ayres for the Browne campaign would or would not violate his
fiduciary responsibility to the party. Mr. Willis said that if he
could not do any outside work he would resign his position. Mr. Willis
said he currently has outside clients and will not discontinue working
with them when he has the time. . . .

Mr. Dasbach [then National Chair of the LP] said that the current
policy is that staffers can not do work for internal campaigns for
free but can do so if paid.

Other than failing to obey this one minor request from some members of the LNC, Perry
performed his work in the most exemplary fashion possible. In fact, he was
probably the most successful National Director the party has ever had. And
he certainly committed no fraud, embezzled no money, and did nothing in
any way to hurt the LP or bring disrepute upon it.

In other words, there was no corruption.

THE INVESTIGATION

Although the matter was over five years old and Perry hadn't worked for
the party in nearly three years, in 2001 the LNC decided to investigate
the matter further. The chairman was instructed to conduct a thorough
investigation. Dozens of people were interviewed, hours and hours of LNC
meetings were devoted to the matter, and in general a great deal of LP
resources were expended over something that had no bearing on today's LP
activities.

The investigation bore no fruit. There was no indication that Perry had
used anything other than his own expertise, on his own time, to help a
Libertarian campaign. There was no evidence that Perry had steered party
resources to me, to give me an advantage over my opponents for the
nomination.

When Chairman Lark approached me to ask what I knew about the matter, I
told him I wouldn't cooperate with the investigation. I gave him three
reasons for my refusal.

The Investigation Set a Bad Precedent

The first reason was that the investigation set a terrible precedent.

By establishing that there is no statue of limitations on grievances,
the LNC has in effect invited anyone with a resentment against another
Libertarian to use the LNC as a vehicle for revenge. Now every rumor ever
circulated about a prominent Libertarian could be the grounds for an LNC
investigation.

In fact, Jacob Hornberger began pushing immediately for a lawsuit to
investigate everyone's finances, a member of the LNC agreed, and the LNC
chairman issued requests for new audits of the 1996 and 2000 presidential
campaigns. Although there no longer were any paid employees of either
campaign, individuals were expected to interfere with their personal and
business lives, sacrificing dozens of hours each, in order to comply with
this request — just to satisfy Jacob
Hornberger.

It's worth noting that the Willis investigation was held mostly on
behalf of those who dislike the national party — to investigate those
who have done a great deal to build the party, increase its membership,
and enhance its image publicly.

It's also interesting that, outside of a group of people who seem to be
complaining continually about one thing or another, the investigation had
very little support from party members. My email list has over 18,000
subscribers — mostly LP members — and it's possible to email me
through this website. It was very easy for anyone to reach me, and to ask
me whether I was involved in any of the things that were alleged. But
despite the large amount of publicity about the controversy, I received no
more than a half-dozen inquiries about it.

And yet the LNC by its investigation made it seem as though something
earth-shaking was involved. It publicized the investigation extensively in
LP News — perhaps to prove to the malcontents that it wasn't
corruptly burying the scandal.

The LP has always had whiners who fail to win any internal contest, and
resort to spreading rumors, anonymous hit pieces, and venom as a way of
trying to get what they want. There is no way to stop such things from
happening. But there is no reason in the world for the Libertarian
National Committee to give more respect to the rumor-mongers than to the
dedicated activists who have done so much to build the party.

I'm aware of a number of hard-working people — some of them major
donors to the party — who have simply given up on the LP after seeing
how much time and attention is wasted in internal bickering. The LNC not
only shouldn't be encouraging the pettiness; it should be taking a stand
against it.

Nothing to Be Achieved by the Investigation

The second reason I declined to cooperate was that the investigation
couldn't possibly achieve anything meaningful.

No plausible accusation had been made of any wrongdoing other than
Perry's refusing to honor an unofficial request to stop moonlighting over five years
before — and he had already acknowledged this. So what was the
investigation going to achieve? No one had even accused Perry of violating
his employment contract or any LP bylaw or resolution.

And what was the LNC going to do about what happened five years before?
Fire Perry Willis retroactively? Expunge from the LP's historical record
that I was the 1996 candidate?

There was no reason for the LNC to do anything. But if the LNC members
felt that something must be done to acknowledge what happened, the
LNC could have passed a resolution stating that it disapproved of Perry's
actions, setting forth an unambiguous employee policy concerning such
matters, and warning that disobedience by an LP employee would be dealt
with harshly in the future.

Anything else — such as a lawsuit, condemnation, or even
investigation — could only make the LNC look ridiculous while achieving
nothing for the party. And such activities would add fuel to the fire
started by those who were hell-bent on claiming that the LP is saturated
with corruption.

The Investigation Wasted Resources

My third reason for declining to cooperate was that the investigation
was a waste of very valuable, limited resources by the LNC.

What has the LNC been doing lately to make the party bigger? As of
August 2002, the LP's membership has declined by 28% in 2˝ years. The growth
that Perry Willis engineered as National Director, encouraged by Steve
Dasbach as National Chair, has been replaced by a sharp decline. Every
plan, every hope, every idea that a Libertarian has for enhancing liberty
depends on a larger LP membership — to provide the funding, the talent,
the skills, the connections necessary to carry out any plan. But growth
has been put on the back burner while the party leaders contemplate their
navels.

What has the LNC been doing to enhance the LP's public image? What has
the LNC been doing to create a more favorable climate for its 2002
candidates?

Unfortunately, the answer to all these questions is: Far less than its
efforts to investigate a 5-year-old moonlighting violation.

A great deal of time and effort were wasted on this investigation.

The Outcome

For these reasons, I wouldn't cooperate in any way with anything that
might divert me, the LNC, or the membership of the party from our missions
— or might encourage future investigations that could achieve nothing
and would waste the limited resources of the party.

And what was the outcome of the investigation?

As expected, once started, the investigation immediately widened to
encompass following up on other rumors — such as allegations of
financial wrongdoing.

As expected, it stoked the fires of slander against a number of the
LP's most productive members.

As expected, nothing new surfaced. At the end, nothing was known that
hadn't been known at the outset.

As expected, the investigation consumed a lot of valuable resources.
For example, the LNC chairman sent inquiries and questionnaires to 113
people, including follow-up requests when responses weren't forthcoming. I
can't imagine how many dozens of hours he must have had to divert this
project.

When his report was submitted to the LNC, the Committee met on August
26, 2001, to consider what to do. A resolution was proposed — and
amended — and amended — and amended to make the language stronger and
stronger and stronger.

This was the opportunity to bring down Perry Willis — a man who may
have achieved more for the Libertarian Party than any other single
individual. He caused the membership to increase at a faster rate than at
any other time in the party's history, professionalized the national
office, moved the party headquarters out of the slums of Washington and
into a modern office building where reporters could safely come for
interviews, and much more.

Prohibiting him from employment and
contractual relationships with the party for 5 years.

Forbidding him (or any organization
with which he is associated) from renting the LP donor list or
advertising in LP News.

Maligning him in LP News.

As a result of the investigation, the LP is worse off. Initiative has
been discouraged, and the party has been transformed from a dynamic,
entrepreneurial enterprise into a moribund bureaucratic organization.

HYPOCRISY

Those who worked so hard to condemn Perry Willis and to defame the 2000
presidential campaign were politically motivated in their quest. They
weren’t working to improve the party’s ethics. They wanted to satisfy
old grudges and get revenge for losses suffered in internal party
contests.

That’s a strong accusation on my part, but there is adequate evidence
to support it.

First, the LNC had determined in two previous scandals that individuals
had actually stolen valuable LP property — money in one case and the
LP's mailing list in the other. They received neither the penalties nor
the publicity that were imposed in Perry's case — even though it was
established that Perry had done nothing worse than to disregard the wishes
of some of the LNC's members to stop moonlighting — an activity that wasn't in violation of any
established party policy.

Second, Perry Willis was accused of working on his own time at
market rates of compensation for one of the presidential campaigns before
the nomination. No one has ever offered any credible evidence that he used
his position to further one candidate at the expense of a candidate’s
Libertarian opponents.

But in 2002 Ron Crickenberger used his LP
position as National Political Director to further the campaigns of two candidates who hadn’t yet
received their state parties’ nominations for office (the very thing
that many people had falsely accused Perry Willis of doing) . . .

When Aaron Russo decided to run for
governor of Nevada, Crickenberger did many things to help him —
including trying to find a campaign manager for him. This was
acknowledged openly in an
LP news release of April 9, 2002, and in an article in the May
2002 LP News.

When the LP decided to target a few Republican Drug Warriors,
Crickenberger chose Carole Ann Rand to be the LP opponent of Georgia
Congressman Bob Barr. According to an
LP news release of July 27, 2002, Crickenberger said, "We
had about a dozen Libertarians volunteer to run against Barr, but
Carole Ann was my top choice."

If the opposition to Perry’s activities wasn’t politically
motivated, why was there no opposition to what Ron Crickenberger did —
which was (1) a far more prejudicial action by an LP employee, and (2)
occurred after so much had been said and done to establish a policy
that LP employees must avoid even the appearance of favoring one
Libertarian candidate over his opponents?

Please understand that I have nothing against Ron Crickenberger, Aaron
Russo, or Carole Ann Rand. Nor do I have any particular objection to what
Mr. Crickenberger did. But doesn’t it seem strange that, given the cries
for blood aimed at Perry Willis for contracting to write fund-raising
letters on his own time, not one public protest has been lodged
against the official help Crickenberger gave to LP nomination
candidates at the expense of their Libertarian opponents?

Obviously, the purpose of the attacks against Perry Willis was not to
promote "ethics" or rid the LP of "the appearance of
impropriety," but to rid the LP of Perry Willis.

PROBLEMS IN A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION

In free market, everyone can get what he wants. If you like Heinz
ketchup and I like Hunts ketchup, neither of us is a threat to the other.
You can buy what you want and I can buy what I want.

But in any political environment —
whether government or a membership organization —
there is a winner-take-all situation. There may be many contenders for an
office or for a party’s nomination, but there can be only one winner in
each case. This means only one candidate and his supporters get what they
want — and everyone else must do
without.

Some people accept defeat graciously. But there always will be some
others who won’t tolerate losing. Those people will use almost any
tactic to avoid losing — and, once
having lost, will do almost anything to exact revenge.

During his long career in the LP, Perry Willis won a lot of internal battles
(and lost some as well). There are numerous disgruntled opponents who have
seized on any opportunity to get even with him. Their motives are made
clear by their selective indignation.

The accusations about Perry first surfaced in rumor form during the
1996 campaign — raised by proponents
of one of the losing candidates for the presidential nomination. The
accusations were picked up and escalated by Jacob Hornberger when he
sought the 2000 nomination.

(It should be noted that the 2001 revelations did nothing to prove that
Jacob Hornberger had been right all along. Every claim he had made was
either (1) untrue, or (2) already known. His long accusatory essays
achieved nothing but dissension and disharmony in the party.)

The attacks on Perry Willis were finally brought to fulfillment in
2001, when members of the LNC who had long opposed him were able to
effectively ride him out of the party on a rail.

THE RESULT

Collective organizations are inherently inefficient. It is almost
impossible for a committee to govern effectively.

The LP was the most productive when Perry Willis took the initiative
and ran the party's headquarters entrepreneurially —
as though it were a corporation. The result was tremendous membership
growth, vastly elevated professionalism, and new outreach programs.

He wasn't a lone-wolf dictator. He worked under the supervision of the
LNC, and he was in constant contact with party chairman Steve Dasbach —
with whom he had an excellent relationship. But he didn't submit to daily
direction from a multitude of cooks, each of whom had his own recipe for
spoiling the broth.

Perry Willis has been a genuine Libertarian hero. The Libertarian
National Committee has diminished itself and the Libertarian Party by
trying to diminish him.

My Record

As for me, there are numerous activities in the campaign that I now
wish we'd handled differently. There may have been opportunities to which
I now wish we'd paid more attention.

But I am not ashamed of anything that I did.

It doesn’t matter to me what Jacob Hornberger, Bill Bradford, George
Phillies, Vin Suprynowicz, or any of the other accusers say. I know the
truth, and I don’t need to prove anything to them.

Most important, I know that every day of my life I can look in the eyes
of
my beloved Pamela without shame or guilt for a single act of the campaign.